Slashdot Mirror

No; it's not because of "YouTube's DMCA takedown system," it's because the law is written with exact steps that are to be taken when a notice, and counter-notice, is filed. Youtube is simply following how the law tells them to do things.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.co...

There is a bit of a difference between a full Disney movie and say... Fan art. https://www.plagiarismtoday.co...

Yes, let's elect another known person that freely admits their lack of morals. https://www.plagiarismtoday.co...

Which was what Universal Pictures did to Dracula, Frankenstein and the Mummy. Anyone can make a movie based on the public domain stories for these characters. What they can't do is based the character designs on the Universal Monsters, as that would violate Universal's copyrights. New movies with these characters deviate from the "classical" design in subtle and not so subtle ways.

If you know of some magic wording that the laws says has to be spouted for it to be an "official" takedown, please enlighten us.

The six specific elements required of a takedown notice are enumerated in section 512(c)(3)(A) of Title 17. There's a bit of explanatory commentary from Plagiarism Today that might help you to understand the relevant passages.

The cease & desist email quoted by TorrentFreak omits at least three of the required six elements - (ii), (iii), and (vi) - and element (v) is at best implied rather than explicitly stated.

I'm glad I was able to enlighten you.

Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.

Not exactly. The complaining party has 10 business days (14 days) to get an injunction to prevent the material from being reinstated; if they do not get the injunction in that time period, it must be promptly reinstated or the ISP actually becomes liable for damages if it is later found that the material did not in fact infringe on the complaining party's copyright.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/06/03/7-common-questions-about-dmca-counter-notices/

A host then passes along the counter-notice to the person who filed the original notice. The works remain offline for 10 business days, after which, if no additional action has been taken by the filer, the works can be restored.

The copyright holder can petition the court for an injunction to prevent the restoration of the original works, but if it is not obtained within the time allotted, the works are restored to the site.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132

If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html

http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132

http://www.crucialp.com/resources/tutorials/web-hosting/how-to-file-dmca-counter-claim.php

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/06/03/7-common-questions-about-dmca-counter-notices/

I wonder if this "big rock star" would have the same attitude if his kids (does he even have kids?) were doing it

Actually he does have at least one child. He's a jack-wagon like his pops.

Yes he has kids. His kids are even worse than file sharers. His kids copy other peoples work and sell it as their own.

Source.

You can also do a Google search for Nick Simmons plagiarism and you'll get lots more on the story.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/08/25/the-myth-of-poor-mans-copyright/

The mailing things to yourself doesn't work pretty much ever.

Michael Crook hit with a lawsuit for fake DMCA takedowns
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/12/04/update-michael-crook-responds-to-eff/

Diebold paid $125,000 for false DMCA takedowns
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/diebold-inc-v-online-policy-group

Universal: EFF SLAPPed us with dancing toddler DMCA lawsuit
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/universal-eff-slapped-us-with-dancing-toddler-dmca-lawsuit.ars

DMCA takedown backlash: EFF sues Viacom over Colbert parody clip
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/03/dmca-takedown-backlash-eff-sues-viacom-over-colbert-parody-clip.ars

Yup, real media never have problems with reporters making stuff up, or plagiarism, or using DoD Propaganda as articles or even using altered photographs. Yup, every single person in the professional traditional media holds to the finest standards of journalism.

Fine. And while we are throwing stones, let's not forget Joe's less than stellar academic moment in law school. It should be noted that all three have certainly made more of themselves than a cursory review of their college days might have indicated.

"It is legal to plagiarize, and big companies do it very often (it's generally known as ghost writing). Copyright infringement is illegal."

1. While not "illegal", plagiarism is classed as a form of copyright infringement, so people and companies can be, and have been successfully sued for it. Here are some links (Google for "plagiarism lawsuit" to see a whole load of others):

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm
http://arthistory.about.com/b/a/116985.htm
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2005/11/18/madonna- loses-plagiarism-lawsuit/
http://www.own-it.org/news/article/?p=15&a=220&t=

2. Ghost writing isn't plagiarism. A ghost writer is paid to write books or articles in somebody else's name, with the "somebody else" usually being a famous or topical person whose writing are judged to be insufficient for publication. A link to some definitions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&r ls=en-us&defl=en&q=define:ghostwriter&sa=X&oi=glos sary_definition&ct=title

If all it takes is a 'counter-notification' to get the content back up, why doesn't everyone just throw back a counter-notification, pending a counter-counter-notification, ad infinitum?

Still, contrast this with the European Union's takedown procedures, laid out in Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 14(b), which limits the liability of a provider who "upon obtaining... knowledge or awareness [of illegal activity or information], acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information." As one blogger put it, "the main difference between the U.S. and the EU on matters of notice and takedown is that the EU removes all of the formalities that exist under U.S. law and, with them, all of the protections."

mjeppsen writes "PlagiarismToday offers a thought-provoking article that frankly discusses concerns with plagiarism and rote content theft among bloggers. In the section entitled "Block quotes by the Dozen" the author mentions the so-called "gray area". That is PlagiarismToday's classification of the common blogger practice of re-using large blocks of text/content from the original article or source, even when the source is attributed."